Polite Kid

I've been following the discussion about McCain's picking Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.
I must admit I was surprised by the choice, though it will have no effect on my own vote.
I have to say I am also surprised by all the buzz generated by the choice, and by Governor Palin herself; she has seemed to impress many people favorably, even on the Democrat side of the aisle, with a number of disgruntled Hillary supporters enthused about the addition of Palin to the ticket.
Predictably the Democrats are calling the choice 'tokenism' and there are the expected personal insults: she is a 'right-wing extremist' and a 'Nazi sympathizer' for having worn a Buchanan button during his visit to her town in 2000. Some Republicans on other forums dislike her because she is 'extreme' on social issues, with some even criticizing her choice NOT to abort her Down's Syndrome child. Some Republicans say she represents the triumph of 'affirmative action' in the GOP, and say that McCain was pandering to feminists by naming her. Though he's shown he's certainly not above pandering to certain constituencies, I think he may have been 'reaching out' not to Republican women, who, one supposes, would be less inclined to seek such pandering, but to unhappy Hillary supporters. He's always fostered the 'maverick' image, and has seemed more often than not to be courting liberals/Democrats rather than Republicans, who he likely thinks will swallow their dissatisfaction and vote for him after all, as 'good Republicans' generally do. I think he knows that many Hillary supporters are quite angry about the treatment their candidate received by the anointed candidate, and I think he is right; there are quite a few who are ready to jump ship and vote GOP this time, which is not a frequent occurrence among Democrats. I know some Democrats, mainly women, who have already threatened to vote GOP, and this may well confirm that decision for them.
So, given McCain's tendency to try to cross party lines and appeal to the liberals on the left side of the aisle, it isn't surprising that he would try to snag some female votes by choosing Palin.
Some argue that Palin is not likely to win many feminist votes, considering her very conservative views on social issues, namely abortion and gay marriage. But that belief is probably based on a misconception about how radical many Democrat 'feminists' are. The extreme left wing of the Democrat Party is its public face, but there are many rank-and-file average women out there whose 'feminism' consists mostly of rather middle-of-the-road ideas about having more women elected to various political offices or about equality in the workplace. Not all who call themselves feminists are as socially radical as those who have the loudest voices in the Democrat Party; not all women have abortion as their number one issue, or gay marriage.
Some of these women are realistic enough to know that legal abortion is not under threat in this country; it just isn't likely that Roe v. Wade will be reversed anytime soon, so all the scare tactics of the left are just rhetoric. Some younger single women may consider abortion very important, but I think there are many more who are not as concerned about it when it comes time to cast their ballots.
I don't know what Palin's positions are on issues that are all-important to me, such as immigration (note that I said 'immigration', not 'illegal immigration') or affirmative action or homeschooling or hate crime laws. I have tried to find information about her positions, but there seems to be little information as to her positions. I would say that since Alaska, until recently, has not had a sizeable immigrant population, immigration and borders are not pressing issues in Alaska. I know that Anchorage has a certain amount of 'diversity' (what city doesn't, these days?) but apart from Alaskan Native issues, I don't think these things are hotly debated in the state as in so many other states.
In any case, I think she will be expected to be on board with the Party line; I would hardly expect her to deviate from McCain on issues like amnesty or affirmative action. She will be a team player; I am sure this is understood from the get-go.
I have to say, though, that this quote from her, cited in the above-linked article, is unfortunate, though typical in the GOP these days:
In an interview last year with this reporter, Mrs Palin lamented the paucity of leadership in the Republican Party, saying it was weighed down with "good old rich white boys". She mentioned no names.''
[emphasis mine]
And as I said, I would not have voted for McCain in any case.
At least, though, there is some excitement and life being injected into this gosh-awful, dead-and-alive election. For months, we've known who the Presidential candidates would be, and the conventions have been a dismal display. I talk to so many people who express disillusionment and alienation, who say they are beyond sick of the campaigns. And these are not partisans, or political junkies, just average people who feel dismayed by the choices on offer. Maybe the presence in the campaign of Governor Palin, who at least seems to be a well-spoken, personable woman, will shake things up and spark some discussion. Her presence might perhaps highlight the sorry state of both parties and their presidential nominees. I know little about her, but she does seem to me to break the mold somewhat, being something other than one more stale beltway hack or corrupt machine politician.
Having said that, I don't share the enthusiasm many people have expressed to me about the 'history-making ' potential of a black President or a woman Vice-President. To me, it should be about character and ability, not about race or sex.
Is Palin good for the GOP in this election? At this point, it appears so. But is the GOP good for us?
Democrat or Republican, it's a wash. On the important issues, we still have nobody representing us.

Labels: Elections, Gop, Party Politics, Presidential Candidates, Social Conservatism

[To my readers - First, let me say I am sorry for the lack of activity here, but this virus I'm fighting is a particularly nasty one; I had thought I was over the worst of it, but then had a setback. It may be a few days before I am back on my feet fully. I hope none of you contracts this ugly virus; it's spread like crazy in my area, and has really hit a lot of people hard.]
Meanwhile, I'm still following the discussion on Sarah Palin, and it appears that the left has decided to spread rumors in an attempt to smear Governor Palin. It seems that their favorite way of smearing a social conservative, especially a Christian one, is to try to find some scandal, a sexual irregularity preferably, so as to throw the 'hypocrisy' charge around.
The rumor that is being spread by the DU mob and the Kossacks is that Palin faked her last pregnancy so as to cover up the fact that it was her teenage daughter who was about to give birth. So the Palins' youngest child is really their illegitimate grandchild -- so the rumor has it.
Read the comments quoted in the above-linked blog entry; you will be disgusted.
This kind of scandal-mongering gossip is absurd. Surely there would be ample evidence to disprove it, but that kind of thing does not deter the left; they will try to discredit every bit of evidence to the contrary as being staged or fake. I hope Mrs. Palin does not dignify these scurrilous stories by 'answering' them.
Even if these rumors were true (and they seem far-fetched) would that discredit the Palins as 'hypocrites'?
I actually think it would be to their credit, were it true. In 'old America' it was not unheard of for parents or other family members to raise a 'chance child' as theirs, thus keeping the child within the family fold while not offering an occasion for scandal to the neighbors. I know of a few cases like this among the older generations, wherein a child was adopted and raised by the grandparents as one of their own children. In some cases, neighbors knew this to be the case, and yet it was simply not talked about.
Hypocrisy? No; it was an open secret, but rather than give some kind of official stamp of approval to illegitimacy, it was handled discreetly. In some cases, the child was relinquished to an adoption agency, or a 'foundling home' in the earlier eras. One can honor the ideals while recognizing that sometimes people fall short of the standards. That is not hypocrisy. Our age has decided to throw out standards altogether and drop any pretense of honoring morality or the Biblical commandments. That's too demanding and 'judgmental', after all.
Nowadays the answer, according to liberal anti-morality, is for the daughter to either keep the child, flaunting her 'mistake', and drawing benefits for the child in many cases, or it's straight to the abortion clinic, which the left seems to see as the 'best' option.
The other thing which the unscrupulous lefties have seized on is the issue of the baby's Down's Syndrome. They seem to think that this is somehow a disgrace. I suppose in their ideal world (heaven help us) there would be no imperfect children; actually there would be fewer children -- except those many children born to the protected 'victim groups' who are allowed to reproduce prolifically, while White Christians are denounced for being 'selfish and irresponsible' for having more than one child.
It was thought many years ago by most people that Down's Syndrome meant that a child would be ineducable and that they would need some kind of institutional care. However in recent years we've seen many people with Down's leading fuller lives, holding down jobs and sometimes living independently. I can think of a couple of cases in my extended family in which late-life babies proved to be Down's children, and they were simply treated like their 'normal' siblings and did quite well. That's the way it was handled in my family. It's obvious that Down's Syndrome people, despite their limitations, can in many cases function quite well, and most importantly they are usually very social and often very affectionate, loving children. We tend to over-value intelligence in our society; character and kindness are so much more precious. Many of those on the left have high IQs, and obviously it has not been of much benefit to them, much less to the rest of us.
For the leftists, these people are mistakes which should be prevented. And it appears that the majority of pregnancies in which Down's is discovered prenatally end in abortion. According to Wikipedia, 92-93 percent of such pregnancies are terminated.
I can believe it; it seems there are fewer Down's children visible among the very youngest ones. My town is something of an exception; there is probably a higher-than-average number of such children here because people tend to be Christian, very socially conservative and pro-life, of course.
To be fair, there are many hard-hearted 'conservatives' who decry the fact that the Palins had this child, as with at least one commenter on this blog. The 'conservative' rationale is that the parents are irresponsible to have such a child, since that the child will be unproductive. And what if the parents are able to take care of their child without any reliance on state help? Surely a conservative or even a libertarian would acknowledge that it is not their prerogative to dictate to the parents.
It really shows how far our society has fallen, when people are not ashamed to make a public issue of something like this, and to concoct stories impugning the character of the Palins individually or as a family.
I hope this low slander is rejected as it deserves to be, and I hope that those who start these rumors (Colmes et al) will be called to account for it.

Labels: Leftism, Liberalism, Party Politics, Rumors, Social Conservatism, Societal Decay

Where are all the social conservatives?
Not here in this discussion.
The discussion is about this story, regarding the young girls in Gloucester, Massachusetts, who apparently made a pact to become pregnant.
It makes me ask: what is going on in Gloucester?
According to City-Data.com, Gloucester is 96.2% White Non-Hispanic, 1.5% Hispanic, 0.6% black.
Allowing for the usual case that these statistics are several years out of date, and also that they represent an undercount of illegal immigrants and others, it seems likely that most of the girls involved are White, of unknown ethnicity.
Here there is a City-Data forum discussion of the story.
So what is going on here? It's not really a surprising story given the trends, going back some years, among Whites in which the illegitimacy rate has been climbing, although not nearly as high as that of blacks or Hispanics.
The fact that the degraded pop culture makes slutty behavior acceptable if not outright glamorous and 'cool' certainly contributes to this kind of thing.
But in the discussion at ParaPundit about the pregnancy pact, it seems that there is little social conservatism on display, except from Randall Parker himself. Granted, many of the regular commenters there are not conservatives; some are liberal or libertarian. But why are there so few socially conservative comments in many such discussions? Are social conservatives a dying breed? It certainly seems that way if you read around the Internet at the 'conservative' or Republican watering holes.
The comments about how girls in past eras married at very young ages are reminiscent of some of the comments made in this discussion on Brave New World Watch a while back. The subject was the FLDS (another subject on which I seemed to be at odds with most conservatives), and the consensus seemed to be that very young marriages could not be opposed on any kind of principle, seeing as how our grandmothers or great-grandmothers married at young ages in many cases. My argument was that the vast majority of young girls (and young men) these days are not ready or willing to truly raise any children they conceive, unlike the older generations, who were mature in a social and emotional sense at much younger ages. However, my argument was dismissed out of hand, as you see.
My grandmothers, both of them, married at young ages. In the case of my paternal grandmother, she was all of 16 years old -- but she lived in very different times, in a different world, you might truly say. In her day, most girls of her age finished school at the end of 8th grade. A relative few academically able young people went to high school, on their way, perhaps, to college. The majority did not. Many rural young girls who left school at 13 or so remained at home until marriage, helping with farm and household chores. In urban areas, some young girls went to work. All these girls who did not go to high school and college were gaining real-life experience and had responsibilities, often involving caring for younger siblings or relatives. Very few young people in that era were granted unlimited freedom and large allowances to play, to take in 'entertainment' or to lollygag with their friends unsupervised. They tended to marry young, without having had a lot of 'experience' in terms of relationships. People often married their first sweethearts, or people they had known since childhood.
By contrast, too many of today's teens have a surfeit of free time, with no adult supervision or interaction, a shocking amount of money provided by their parents, and access to a lot of lurid popular entertainment (rap and hip-hop music, violent and explicit movies and TV shows). The combination is a very unhealthy mix.
Hence, a gaggle of teenage girls making a pact to become pregnant.
Those who argue that these girls are simply responding to their biological urge for motherhood -- which is, by definition, good -- don't address what will happen once the girls actually give birth. In an ideal society, we would probably have a lot more early parenthood -- but in the context of a sound marriage. How likely is that for these girls? Nobody seems to know, or be willing to say, who fathered the children the girls conceived. One of the fathers is said to be a 24-year-old 'homeless' man. Are these candidates for happy families? Are they equipped to raise the children to be decent people?
Girls are biologically capable of motherhood, in many cases, while they are in elementary school. So the argument that they should become mothers because they are physically prepared for it would logically mean that we should have 11-year-olds becoming mothers. Why not, if biological readiness is all that matters?
If we are going to argue for motherhood as early as girls can manage it, we have to acknowledge the studies showing that the younger the mother, the more the risks.
I just don't see where this argument, that early motherhood is desirable because it's biologically possible, comes from, especially where 'conservatives' are concerned.
Women are also biologically capable of bearing children up until menopause. Back in the pre-Pill days, women often had babies in their late 40s and occasionally, in a rare instance, over 50. Is that also desirable because it's physically possible? Most of us would say not.
I can't help asking whether there is not a movement to lower the age of consent that is masquerading as a simple wish to go back to the 'old days' when 13-year-olds could marry.
Our present-day society is much more complicated than the one our grandparents and great-grandparents lived in. We can't wish away all the complications and say that immature, narcissistic, dysfunctional teens should just start having kids because they are anatomically capable of breeding.
So what would the conservative ideal be for these girls? Statistically speaking, they are unlikely to give their children up for adoption by married couples, as would have been done in many cases before the Sexual Revolution. Statistically, it would seem most likely for them to give birth, though remaining unmarried, and to go on as before with their lives: attending school, putting their babies in the school nursery or daycare with all their friends' babies, and just participating in all the usual teen social activities: dating, partying, or whatever. Chances are, the babies' grandmothers may be the de facto mothers of the babies. In the old days, when a girl ''got in trouble'' and the father had absented himself or was otherwise unavailable or unsuitable, occasionally the mother of the girl raised the child as one of her own, and the real parentage was not discussed. But that will not happen here; the girls will ''keep'' the babies while not assuming full responsibility. A bad situation all the way around, ensuring that, at least in some cases, the babies will be dumped in day care while the mother works when she is an 'adult', and most likely there will be multiple 'daddies' or 'uncles' in and out of the household as the mother pursues her dating life despite motherhood.
A recipe for future problems, for the child and society.
Ideally, the mothers-to-be would marry the fathers, who would be responsible young men, and all would live happily ever after. But in a world in which young people are devoted all too often to hedonism and self-seeking lifestyles, and few are ready for adult responsibilities until well into their twenties, or even older, there is little likelihood of that. Odds are that a sizable percentage of the babies will be supported, to some extent, by public funds.
So how do we prevent these things? I am afraid that our society has become so decadent that it's all but impossible to shield your children from the corrupting influences that are out there. I've certainly known many young people from conservative Christian homes, in wholesome communities, who run away, engage in promiscuous behavior, have children without benefit of wedlock, or become drug-addicted.
Many well-meaning parents are too busy to keep tabs on what their children are doing, and have rather shallow relationships with their children. Sometimes this is not their fault, as the demands of earning a living, long commutes to work, and managing personal concerns conflict with parenting. Still, in many cases, some of these factors are under the control of the parents, and they are simply too self-absorbed to put their children and family life first. We do have more control over these thing than many admit.
Still even with the best intentions and the best efforts at good parenting, things go wrong. The pull of the tawdry popular culture is just too strong, and it's too ubiquitous. Unless we live like the Amish, there's no chance of completely avoiding the temptations. I hear that even the Amish sometimes lose children to the 'world.'
In the meantime, though, social conservatives (if there are any still left) should be doing all they can to resist the pull of the depraved culture around us. We are supposed to be preserving, or if that is no longer possible, trying to restore the best of our traditional culture, based on the Christian values of our culture.
Giving in to popular trends, going with the flow, or rationalizing bad behavior from a libertarian standpoint should not be the approach we take.

Labels: Family Unit, Social Conservatism, Societal Decay, Traditional Morality, Western Decline

Caveat: the following is not meant to disparage anybody who has few or no children. I am speaking in generalities and I trust that nobody will take offense at anything I say here.
In the recent discussion, the question of family size and number of children came up. Now, the most common reason we hear for encouraging large families these days, is the Mark Steyn-esque argument that we need to outbreed the Moslems. I think that's one of the least compelling, and the worst reasons, for having large families. First, can we, who are a dwindling number globally, out-reproduce the teeming Third World? Remember we are far outnumbered, and also keep in mind that this teeming Third World is knocking ever more insistently at our doors and windows. Those who are not already in our midst are on their way or planning to be on their way or trying to find out how they can get here, wishing to be somewhere in the 'rich world', as they call it in The Economist. So hoping to outpace the Third World in reproducing is a far-fetched hope.
There are better reasons for having large families, the best being that we love children and want to welcome as many as we can take care of into our already happy lives. And for Christians, we view kids as God's gift to us, and we want to raise them to know and love and serve and give glory to God.
As members of a large extended family called our nation or people, we want to raise our children to carry on the life of that group, and to continue our ways and our heritage into the future. Our children are the future for our particular line, and for our people.
Who should not have a large family, or perhaps any children? Those who don't want children, who are not prepared financially to care for them, or who are in some way not good candidates.
People should not reproduce carelessly and should not have children by accident.
But apart from all this, what are the advantages of big families?
Over the last 30-35 years, we've seen the triumph of the leftist-feminist idea that large families are harmful to women, who are thereby made nothing but domestic slaves to husband and children. Even many 'conservative' women believe this, and say as much. Once, only leftist feminists said and thought such things; now it's considered common wisdom among 'conservatives', sadly.
The other attitude that has won out since the counterculture days is the 'zero population growth' attitude, that somehow people having large families are irresponsible and backward and selfish, while having few or no children is the sure sign of an enlightened, environmentally responsible person.
Somehow, this ethic is never applied to the Third World peoples, whether they are at home in their native countries or whether they are here in our countries, breeding large families, at public expense.
Another argument that has been widely accepted is that couples cannot afford large families because today's world makes childrearing and stay-at-home mothering out of reach of 'average' people. I say this is not as true as we think; it's all a matter of priorities. It's only economically unfeasible for some people because they choose to spend their resources on pricey toys and gadgets, extensive travel, dining, and many other non-essentials while ruling out the 'expensive' family.
This is very much a 'live for today' attitude, which is at odds with conservatism or tradition.
Today we have much higher standards in terms of what we think is an acceptable standard of living. Many think poverty means having only one car, or living in a modest home rather than a McMansion, or shopping at a lower-price retailer (and I don't mean Wal-Mart) rather than having the trendiest, most up-to-date of everything.
In other words, many of us are spoiled and self-indulgent.
Most of us, myself included, could cut out a lot of the frills and nonessentials and thus have more money for the essentials. In this day of rising gas prices, and tightened budgets, we will probably have to cut out the fat.
But are there real arguments to be made for large families?
I grew up in a fairly large family of five children.
My parents were from large families, of thirteen and eight children, respectively.
Here's what I know from experience and observation about large families:
The children of large families are given more responsibility, usually through necessity, and they have to pull their weight and do their part. This encourages a work ethic and a mature attitude at an earlier age, as well as giving them confidence in what they can do.
They learn the idea of accommodating and getting along with others among a group of siblings.
Kids in a large family are each others' company and entertainment, as well as emotional support. You learn to interact with peers through interacting with your sisters and brothers. Granted, it's not always a bed of roses, but neither is life in the larger world. It teaches you a sense of reality.
"The great advantage of living in a large family is that early lesson of life's essential unfairness."
- Nancy Mitford
Older children in the family act as role models (in positive ways, and sometimes negative ways).
Older siblings can sometimes be an inspiration either to do good things, or an example to avoid, by bad example. Having younger siblings helps us learn childcare skills and responsibility, which prepare us to be parents in our turn.
Having many siblings tends to teach us not to be as materialistic, because resources are spread rather thinner in large families, and we learn to have regard for others and their wants and needs as well as our own.
Children in larger families have a less exaggerated sense of their own importance; in a larger family you are not going to be doted upon by your parents or grandparents as much as if you were an only child. You thus attain a sense of perspective about yourself and your value. You don't get the idea that the sun rises and sets on you, in a large family. It isn't all about you. There are other people to be considered, and everybody has to take their turn, and learn to wait.
I've noticed that many 'only children' have more trouble relating to peers, or that they tend to be more idiosyncratic, more inclined to be loners. That can be good or bad, but from an outsider's perspective, it seems rather lonely to be an only child. Friends somewhat take the place of siblings, but friends can and do come and go. They are not always there for life, as siblings usually are.
Now I can hear the arguments that 'brothers and sisters aren't always close; many times they can't get along, and even loathe each other.' That's as may be; no doubt it happens, but I don't see that in really well-functioning, loving families much. I didn't see any of that kind of conflict in my Dad's family; the bond between him and his brothers and sisters, and their loyalty to each other, overrode any squabbles they had, which were few.
Blood is, as the old saying has it, thicker than water. Friends can fall out and part ways forever, (and yes, so can family members) but especially with a large family, even if you are estranged from one or two of your siblings, there are plenty of others there for you. Large families present better odds of having supportive, loyal family members who will stick by you.
The same is true of parents and children. My beloved Grandma, with thirteen children and dozens of grandchildren and who knows how many great-grandchildren never lacked for someone to care for her at the end of her life. She did live a long and healthy and active life, and her health failed only at the very end. She was always surrounded by people who loved her as only family members can love.
Of course we can love those who are not kin. But there is a special kind of accepting, enduring, unconditional love that is found among close kin. We can see it also between loving spouses and among certain very close friends, but the family circle is the main source of such love, and after all, it's within the close family unit that we first learn love, acceptance, cooperation, self-sacrifice, and compassion. We also learn patience, and contrariwise, we learn how to stand up for ourselves, if we have contentious siblings.
The family is a microcosm of the larger world out there. It can prepare us to succeed and prosper, given the right conditions. Even a less-than-ideal family can teach us useful lessons.
And surely having large families, with many caring relatives is better for society, especially when seen from a conservative or traditional perspective. In the future, given the prevalence of small families, there will be many, many older people who will rely on nursing home care, and on the ministrations of strangers and the government to help them as they become infirm.
In past eras, when there were large families, siblings shared in the care of the elders when they could no longer take care of themselves, and there was less need for the old folks to be warehoused in nursing homes as they aged and their health failed. Usually, one of the many children could take in the ailing parent and care for them at home.
From a conservative point of view, smaller families and many childless adults will one day mean many frail elderly having to be cared for by the state and by strangers in the relatively near future. If our ideal is smaller government, and a shrinking of the 'nanny state', small families are counterproductive. The presence of strong (and large) family support systems means far less need for entitlement programs and institutions for the elderly.
Likewise, the leftist-feminist agenda has created a need for more day-care centers and has led to a tendency to put toddlers in 'pre-schools' at earlier ages, in the care of the school system.This contrasts to the customs of the past. When I was a child, most of us did not leave our mothers until age six, when we were required to start first grade. Now, at age six, most children are already veterans of the 'system', and fully acculturated to the public school institution.
So the smaller family tends to mean more isolation, early in life and late in life, with the reliance on the rather impersonal institution rather than the loving bosom of the family.
There are many reasons why the left pushed the idea the desirability of few or no children, and of the 'village' raising our children, as opposed to parents and the extended family having control over their children's upbringing. Overall, the agenda has weakened the family and home and the influence thereof, in favor of the influence of the state and debased popular culture.
And speaking of debased popular culture, has anybody noticed how much our popular culture tends to disparage and ridicule the family unit, especially the traditional family? Many sitcoms and movies tend to portray 'dysfunctional' families with obnoxious, boorish parents and malicious siblings. The family is treated very roughly in our entertainment media. I think this is intentional.
People in a society with mostly small families and a weakened family unit are often people with few close ties, people who are rootless and disconnected and more prone to alienation and anomie. They might be possibly more inclined to find 'surrogate families' in weird places, like cults, or political causes, or perhaps simply to remain permanent adolescents, doing adolescent things into middle age or beyond. We often read the standard excuses made by liberal sociologists and journalists about how fatherless kids, (of whom we have many now) or kids with weak family bonds, join gangs, and find their support system there. We are social animals, and people who lack the most primal connections will either tend to find some substitute, or perhaps just become isolated. There does seem to me to be a larger number of isolated, lonely people in today's America, compared to the past.
On WikiAnswers, someone asked about the advantages and disadvantages of a large family.
The only response was this:
If someone decides to have a large family that's their business, however having a large family you better have a good salary or both parents working as the cost of having a large family today is expensive. With a small family the costs are less.''
Is this what it really comes down to, dollars and cents? It isn't possible to count everything in economic terms. Doing so, or even attempting to reduce everything to the naked economic calculations, shows a kind of soullessness that is the unique product of our spiritually impoverished time.
Our parents and grandparents raised families, often large families, in less prosperous times than ours. If they did it, so can those today who want families.
It all comes down to priorities.
"He that raises a large family does, indeed, while he lives to observe them, stand a broader mark for sorrow; but then he stands a broader mark for pleasure too." - Benjamin Franklin

Labels: Family Unit, Kith And Kin, Liberalism, Social Conservatism, Traditionalism

I've mentioned before that I collect ephemera, my favorite era being the early 20th century. I love learning about earlier times from the ephemera of the age: written material, magazines, even the ads tell a story. The artwork and the illustrations were often beautiful, much more so than today's counterparts.
One thing that catches my eye in the old ads and magazine articles is the presence of many upper-class people, dressed in their finery, attending some soigné event. Many of the domestic scenes in advertising depict elegant women at home with their housemaids. This kind of thing is conspicuously absent in our modern advertising, for obvious reasons. The world has turned upside down from what it was 100 years, or even 70 years ago. The egalitarian, downward-leveling trend has become the hallmark of our age. There are no clear class delineations as there were back then, with moneyed people and their luxuries. Nowadays, the rich often dress, act, and speak just like those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Think Paris Hilton.
And since the English language is on my mind these last few days, coincidentally I was just at a forum where the discussion centered on class
distinctions in the UK as reflected in language.
Apparently, there remain, despite all the leveling efforts of the leftists, differences in vocabulary as well as pronunciation in the UK.
This article from long-ago 1992 describes the class patterns in British English:
John Honey, an itinerant English professor educated at Cambridge and Oxford who is currently teaching in Japan, created a stir in Britain when his book was published. He urged Britons to acknowledge that speech accents are the coding of the class system and to strike a blow for equality by teaching everyone to speak the Queen's English, which Honey termed "received pronunciation," or R.P. The classic example of R.P. would be the crisp, clipped speech of most BBC news readers.
The Charles-Di split, then, is a matter of two different styles of upper-class speech. Prince Charles speaks a marked version of R.P. -- the upper-crust English, oozing privilege, spoken today mainly by senior members of the royal family, old Etonians and aging Oxford and Cambridge dons. R.P. speakers pronounce "cloth" as clawth and talk about the lorst pah of the British Empah (the "lost power of the British Empire").
Princess Diana has swung to the other end of the R.P. spectrum, occasionally assuming a trendy down-market variant, including traces of popular London speech, that approaches cockney. Its most prominent feature is "t-glotalling," which means strangling the final "t" in most words. Expert ears, for example, have detected Diana saying there's a lo' of i' abou' for "there's a lot of it about." '
From the perspective of today, it would appear that the 'received pronunciation' has long since lost the battle. I've noticed how 'the Queen's English' has been displaced in the British media by various regional accents and by more 'working-class' patterns of speech. When I watch old British films, (for example, today I saw ''Great Expectations" from 1946), the English spoken then is markedly different than that heard in the British media today.
There may be some of the older generation whose accents follow the old patterns but they seem to be few and far between.
I believe the cultural Marxists want to eliminate anything that hints at ''elitism'' and class distinctions and standards, the latter of which are
anathema to them in all areas of life. In the UK as in the United States and throughout the West, there is the mania for 'equality' and for a malicious pulling-down of those who are looked at superior or elite in some way.
And that, to me, is the crux of this issue of class distinctions in speech. The left is always busily destroying all vestiges of our former standards and ideals. Having distinctions of any kind amounts to ''discrimination" and this must always be stamped out.
This piece cuts to the chase, regarding speech:
Every detail of our selves and our lives � our appearance, speech, activities and associations � is perceived by others as an emblem of who we were, what we have become and where we fit in. The social profile of each person is recognizable and unique, like a fingerprint.
The ways we speak also reflect this combination of social similarity and diversity in fine detail.
[...]
Language has always helped to signify who we are in society, sometimes serving as a basis for exclusion. A Bible story tells how a password, shibboleth, was chosen because the enemy didn�t use the sh sound. "Shibboleth" has since come to signify an emblem of belief or membership, an identifiable sign of those who must stay outside the gate.
Societies use shibboleths in many ways. Indeed, speech is a convenient stand-in for other kinds of stigma that we recognize but do not openly acknowledge. For example, in our society, discrimination based on appearance, race, sex, religion or national origin is TABOO and often illegal, whereas discrimination based on particular details of language use by men or women, people of different religions, people from other countries and so on is often allowed.''
Do we have any class distinctions in speech in the United States? I would say we don't. It may be that some traditionally-minded people are unfavorably disposed towards those who have very uneducated speech, or strong regional accents in some cases. But this need not necessarily reflect a class bias, or a racial bias. We just tend to react somewhat negatively to someone who displays ignorance in their way of speaking.
It's often said, with some truth in the allegation, that people tend to judge those who speak with a Southern accent as ''ignorant'' or backward, even if the speaker uses impeccable grammar and syntax. The accent itself bears a stigma, I would say as much or more than ''ebonics''. And you'll notice I didn't specify that ''Northern people tend to judge'' Southern accents negatively -- just ''people.'' There are some who are born and bred in the South who carefully cultivate a neutral accent, modeling it on the media standard. Many of the younger generations do not sound Southron at all, even if their parents speak with a strong regional accent. I think this move away from the Southern speech is sometimes not a conscious thing; it's simply 'in' to speak standard American English as heard on TV or in Hollywood movies. Younger people who watch the mainstream media consciously or unconsciously absorb the accent they hear; it has connotations of being hip and cool, unlike the Southern drawl.
Other than that, however, we don't have a great deal of class distinction in our speech. Education these days does not do a very good job of educating. Sadly, most of those in academia these days are dedicated leftists who think that proper grammar and enunciation are ''elitist' and outmoded, as well as 'reactionary'. So who is there to uphold standards of good grammar and speech?
The linked PBS article argues (just as my linguistics professor did back in the 70s) that language is perpetually changing, and that we mustn't try to stop or impede the change. Language is 'organic', so the party line says. Languages just grow, like Topsy, and we can't control or even direct the change that inevitably happens. We can be 'descriptive' in discussing language, in other words, simply observe and note what we see and hear, but we can't be 'prescriptive' and uphold standards -- because everything is relative, you see. Who are we to judge the ebonics speakers or those who speak some sort of pidgin English or Spanglish or whatever argot?
A complex pattern of influences keeps the linguistic pot bubbling. Variation is everywhere. Change never stops. Language gatekeepers cannot control an ever-changing world of diversity. It�s hard on them, because in the gatekeepers' world, variation means error and change means decline.
What�s more, the very notion of a single standard of correctness in language is quite recent. "Correctness" is based solely on a purist�s own notion of what is socially or culturally correct: if it's not in, it must be out. A language purist works from a list of exceptions to the rule, ordinary speakers follow a hierarchy of patterns that reveal analogical similarities.''
Yes, the usual leftist arguments are heard in the realm of linguistics as in all other areas. Change is inevitable; embrace it. Celebrate it. Above all, don't judge it. Don't try to control it or contain it.
Change is sacred to the leftist.
And we ''language purists' who think (silly us) that there are rules and standards which apply to language just as to any other system, and who think that we should try to contain and direct change, are just sticks-in-the-mud who are impeding the 'diversity' and the richness of our ever-changing language.
I suppose we have to give the left some kind of credit for being consistent in their 'philosophy'. They are consistent to the point of being monomaniacal, when it comes to advancing their agenda in every area of life.
The larger question, though, is the loss of standards in our society.
I suppose it could be said that the beginnings of our country already contained the seed of our current obsession with 'equality' and leveling, which we see in the assault on all standards. Proper speech is now denigrated as archaic and rigid, the province of 'language purists'. Basic etiquette and social graces are scoffed at as passé and old-fashioned. Dress codes are going by the wayside, as people more and more tend to dress for 'comfort', regardless of the occasion. There are very few occasions for which Americans dress up nowadays. Jeans and T-shirts and athletic shoes are the universal uniform for all occasions from church on Sunday to the symphony. As I mentioned, even the wealthy are likely to slouch around in the ''uniform'' when in public.
Sexual mores, like all social standards, are now strictly up to the individual; who are we to judge? Tolerance of anything and everything is a mark of the sophisticated, ''enlightened'' 21st century American.
Profanity and obscenity are everywhere, with no respect for the people present. Oldsters, toddlers, nobody is spared the foul language.
The arts are no longer governed by any sort of rules regarding aesthetics or skill. This is true of the so-called 'fine arts' as well as popular culture.
Mediocrity and even ineptitude are no obstacle to attaining fame or success in the arts and popular entertainment.
Good taste has gone out the window; once I tried to discuss 'taste' with a liberal friend; it was a foreign language to her. ''Taste'' is an elitist construct, imposed by the aristocracy on the sainted common man.
The sad thing about all this is that the ''conservatives'' for the most part are rank egalitarians and levelers in most respects, just as the liberals and leftists. Perhaps the old American obsession with demolishing social class in general, the tradition of hating aristocracy, has gone too far. It seems to me that even conservatives have accepted many of the class warfare bromides of the left.
Our country was born from a revolution against English royalty, and there was an anti-aristocratic undertone to the slogans and sentiments of many of the Founding Fathers -- yet there was a movement to make George Washington a king, rather than President.
There was an old Southron aristocracy, and I am sure there were wastrels and other undesirables among their ranks, but on the other hand, many good men came out of that class: the aforementioned Washington, Thomas Jefferson, the Lees, the Pages, the Randolphs, the Taylors, and many more. Aristocracy is not an innately bad thing, provided they are principled.
Can anyone argue that democracy is preferable? How is it working out for us now?
Our forefathers, at least the Founding Fathers, opposed the idea of democracy and 'equality', despite Thomas Jefferson's unfortunate phrase ''all men are created equal."
Democracy does not exist for a long time - it wastes, exhausts and destroys itself. There was never a democracy that didn't kill itself" - Samuel Adams
"Democracy always leads to conflicts and instability, but never provides for the security of the citizens or their property. Usually it is very short at life, and very bloody at death" -- James Madison
There are many more such quotes in the same vein. Yet somehow Americans have become enamored of 'democracy' and equality.
Equality and liberty can't coexist. Neither can equality and standards. If we are to level everybody, standards must be pulled down; those who excel or distinguish themselves in any way are to be pounded down so as to prevent inequality.
Not so many decades ago, we had a culture which encouraged all, rich, poor, or middle-class, to aspire to civilized, genteel behavior. Children were taught to be polite and courteous, and respectful of elders. Girls, in particular, were taught social graces and were often sent to 'charm school' to learn how to groom themselves, carry themselves, and to be gracious.
Everybody could, and most did, aspire to ''better themselves." Even those from a poor background could become educated, or educate themselves, acquire some social polish, and improve their status in the world. Now, it seems every economic class emulates the lowest level of society. The gutter culture is 'cool.'
The old-style rich in America were standard-bearers. While there were 'black sheep' among them, in general they comported themselves well in public; it was considered part of the duty of the 'upper classes' to set an example. Now that we no longer have a wealthy class with any sense of noblesse oblige, or with a desire to uphold higher standards of behavior, we have no exemplars at all, except vapid celebrities, who are often troubled people with no detectable standards. Or there are the overpaid athletes who are idolized by many.
On this blog we've often discussed the leadership void. Leaders need not be politicians or 'statesmen' -- and how many of the latter even exist today? Leaders are standard-bearers and standard-setters. They are people who, at their best, honor and uphold social and cultural standards and traditions, and set an inspiring example. We all need something to which to aspire, and we all need to aspire to something honorable and worthy. We have few if any such leaders and standard-bearers now. I wonder if, by killing our aristocracy metaphorically, we have done ourselves in. We can see in history how much harm was caused by the Jacobins and their obliterating of class distinctions.
Standards are necessary; our mania for 'democracy' and 'equality' is proving to be very destructive to our society. I believe any effort to undo all the horrendous errors of the last five decades or so must include a renewed respect for quality, excellence, merit, and achievement, as well as for order and beauty.
We live in an ugly, sloppy age dominated by willful adolescents. At some point, the adults will have to reassert control.
The liberals say 'change never stops', and if they are right, then the pendulum has to swing back eventually.

Labels: Egalitarianism, English Language, History, Leadership, Social Class, Social Conservatism, Societal Decay

There is an interesting discussion at What's Wrong With the World of the Palin issue, centering on the question of unmarried pregnancy. The participants in the discussion talk about whether there should be a stigma on unmarried pregnancy and illegitimacy and to the credit of some, particularly Lydia, there is mention of the double standards which have traditionally been applied in situations like that of Bristol Palin.
Here is one area in which the traditional ways were not the optimum: the disproportionate stigmatizing of the mother in such a pregnancy, while in many cases allowing the father to go scot-free, no condemnation, no requirement of support for the child, no nothing. As much as I say I believe in the old ways for the most part, the old ways were much harder on women in these situations.
Zippy, in referring to the scathing criticisms and condemnation of Sarah Palin and her daughter from certain quarters on the right, asks, as I have been wondering myself:
Where is the chivalry? Where is the class? Attacking her in that manner seems self-defeating. One can make the substantive points - as you in fact have - without acting a boor in one's treatment of a lady. Traditional men treat women differently from men.''
[emphasis mine]
Yes!
I think too many men have been wounded or angered by feminists and feminism and are now taking out their bitterness on women in general. This would be less objectionable if the same men did not claim to be traditional or conservative in outlook. Now, if we really want to return to the old ways between men and women, then chivalry is a part of that package. One can't disclaim belief in the equality of the sexes and yet expect to have free rein to attack women in the same way as men. In the old days, no man with any self-respect would pick a fight with a woman or challenge her to a duel, or take a swing at her, inviting her to 'fight like a man." But this is what many anti-feminist men on the right have been doing, and are doing in this Palin thing; they are saying women should be able to 'take it' like men -- as if they are in fact equal.
And do conservatives, really, after all, believe that men and women ARE equal and the same, and that thus men can take off the gloves and treat women the same as men? It sure looks that way from here.
And yes, I know exactly what some will respond: they will say 'the feminazis claim they are equal, so let them take it like men, if that's what they want.'' Sorry, no, it can't be had both ways. If a man attacks a woman as if she were a man, he is the one displaying a belief in women's equality; he is behaving as if she CAN take it like a man, and that he fully expects her to be able to duke it out on male terms, by male rules. Or does he fully know she can't, and is he thus looking to take on a weaker opponent, which is rather unchivalrous?
Chivalry was not a matter just of outward niceties, like the old story of Sir Walter Raleigh throwing his cloak down into a puddle so that a passing lady would not muddy herself. It isn't just about opening doors or pulling out a chair for a lady. It's the recognition that men and women are different and that because of the relative weakness of women, they are not to be treated as men.
Again, I hear somebody say 'well they want to be treated just like men.' And? People in Hades want ice water, too. Some women want to be treated just like men, but men insist on treating ALL women that way, with the excuse that 'the feminazis want it that way." Well, those feminazis (to use Limbaugh's rather tiresome term) don't speak for me or for a lot of women, and they weren't given power to dictate to us all. Why do men seem to capitulate easily to what 'the feminazis want'?
Some won't like my answer, but here it is: I think they want the same things as 'feminazis' want, in many cases, though for different reasons.
I think men withdrew all the little niceties because they were nursing a longtime resentment of 'having' to observe the chivalrous gestures. Men felt put-upon about opening doors or doffing their hats to ladies. That was obvious by how quickly they dropped the gestures. The phrase 'women's lib'' was barely coined before men started going on strike against chivalry. I remember way back in 1969 or so, when the "bra-burners" had just made the news (actually the bra-burnings were an urban myth, but that's another story). I was on a public bus in a big city, during rush hour, when some female workers boarded. There were many seated men, and not a few weeks before, these men would have vacated their seats for the women. This time, one man said, in a surly fashion: ''they want to be equal? Let 'em stand up!"
At that time, the prevalent belief among most men was that women had it easy, and didn't work hard as men did. Well, true enough, men did physically harder and more dangerous work then. But many of these women were not in white-collar or 'pink-collar' jobs; they were worn-looking women who worked in suitcase factories at grueling jobs, or who waited tables on their feet all day and had varicose veins. They were women who worked as seamstresses in sweatshops. These were not pampered, spoiled women. And I suspect that many of them had kids at home, and would have to cook a meal or do laundry when they got home.
But the rest of the men on the bus simply kept their seats and let the women stand the whole way home. Thus it was ever after that. The women didn't complain and no man broke ranks and gave a woman a seat.
At the time, I didn't think much of it, because I was a young liberal, and I thought, fair enough. Women ARE equal. We should stand up, same as the men.
However, I questioned this a short while later, when the strike by men extended to refusing to yield seats to elderly women or women in late stages of pregnancy or women with babies or toddlers in their arms. That, I thought, was thoughtless, to let those women stand as a way of punishing the 'bra-burners.'
In those days, I would get up and give the old women or the pregnant a seat, if need be. But the men seemed to feel no shame about not doing so.
Some of you might say, 'why should they feel shame'? Because as regards old folks, male or female, we should defer to them, and pregnant women, though not infirm by definition, still have a hard time keeping their balance on a moving bus or train. A pregnant woman's center of gravity shifts, and she has a hard time staying on her feet.
I think women's lib provided an excuse for men to drop all chivalrous gestures, which it seems many found onerous or unfair.
Men were glad to be shut of chivalry and its demands, and to cite 'women's libbers' as they were then called, as their justification for doing so. And they could feel quite self-righteous about it.
So it is now; men do not want the old system of chivalry, because they no longer believe in its tenets, in the idea that a real gentleman defers to ladies, regardless of whether he deems them worthy of those considerations. The idea behind it was that of noblesse oblige, not a sense of compulsion. If you believe that women are the frailer sex, or that they should be treated with gallantry, then you don't resent giving them small considerations and gestures. It showed nobility of character. It's easy to show consideration to those whom you consider to be your lessers in some way; it was in no way a concession to 'feminazis' but it was a magnanimous thing, an 'I can afford it'' thing.
At some point, men no longer believed in those things, so the small courtesies began to be treated as impositions, and when the first pretext presented itself, the courtesies were dropped like a hot potato.
I think few would disagree with me when I say that there is little courtesy in general in our society; we all feel equally entitled and nobody wants to yield to anybody else. Few people show special courtesy to the elderly now; this is also part of the anti-chivalry fallout. Elders are 'the weak' whom knights of old were sworn to defend and protect. How many people see old folks that way now? Most, including many conservatives, see old folks as a burden and an unsightly nuisance. Conservatism, for some, is a pretext for a selfish, mean approach to life. This is what kept me from identifying with conservatism for a long time, because I saw this 'rugged individualist' every-man-is-an-island meanness. Now, I can see that much of it is part of the classic libertarian mindset, which celebrates selfishness. But that mindset has prevailed among many 'conservatives' these days.
In general, even conservatives today behave in reality like rank egalitarians/individualists, with a 'devil take the hindmost', 'look out for number one' attitude.
And this de facto egalitarian treatment of women is in effect an affirmation of feminist principles. By "conservatives."
Another point in which many men agree with 'feminazis' is on questions of sexual morality and abortion. It's facile to blame all that on feminists, when people like Hugh Hefner and other men were on board with it. Why wouldn't they be? It made for more sexual license, with women persuaded that 'liberation' meant freedom to practice casual, commitment-free sex. Abortion meant that men would have fewer 'mistakes' that they would have to pay child support for. And women's pursuit of careers in place of marriage meant that many men, who were/are marriage-averse, would be able to preserve their vaunted 'bachelor lifestyle' much longer, with women who would be sexually available with no strings attached.
So, men's interests coincided with those of feminists, in many cases. And they didn't have to be burdened with chivalry anymore. No more opening doors -- ''because the women hate it." No more expectations of commitment before sex.
I don't believe that men in general, including 'conservatives', would welcome a return to the status quo ante. Not at all.
Too much of what I see today on the right is little more than knee-jerk anti-liberalism. The leftists and liberals believe in women in high office, so let's denounce women in high office. The liberals believe in working mothers, so let's condemn working mothers across the board. The liberals promote premarital sex so let's condemn it harshly and bring back the scarlet letter. Why stop there? Bring back the stocks and the pillory.
But only for women, of course. Apparently, women get pregnant by parthenogenesis, without a male playing a part in it, these days.
This latter-day anti-feminism would have us be more traditionalist than tradition itself. There has been a long tradition of women taking an active role in this society, long, long, before 'feminazis' came along, and long before the abominated 1960s. If you want to go way back, Tacitus, the Roman historian, described the high status of women among the Germanic tribes. Women were in prominent positions in Celtic societies in ancient times.
More recently, Alexis de Tocqueville described the high status of women in America. It is not a product of Rush Limbaugh's 'feminazis' or of 'hippies' or of Hillary Clinton. It's a longstanding feature of our Western civilization, like it or not.
So what 'tradition' are we harking back to in trying to put women back into their 'proper' roles? Cite me chapter and verse. What tradition? Where? When? Or are some conservatives confusing Moslem tradition with Christian tradition?
Generally I believe that mothers should stay at home and care for their young children. When the children are of school age, however, I don't see why a woman cannot or should not work, as long as her mothering duties are not neglected and her children not shortchanged, and as long as her husband does not object.
Full disclosure: I have been both a working mother and a stay-at-home. Given my preference, I would have stayed at home permanently. But we don't always get what we want in life. Conservative or no, we cannot always control our life's circumstances. It is an ideal but it is not always reality.
Conservatives, above all, should be the ones who can differentiate between an ideal, to which it is good to aspire, and the realizable, which is often what we can realistically manage in an imperfect world.
It grieved me to leave and go to work every day; I can honestly say I shed tears over it. But one does what is necessary sometimes.
Many working mothers feel bad enough about leaving their children without being castigated and called bad mothers or bad Christians for it.
By the way: those of you who object to working mothers will, I am sure, support some kind of welfare payments for widowed or divorced women who would otherwise have to leave their children to go to work.
What's that you say? No? Then I see a contradiction here. Is staying at home only reserved for some?
Not everybody has family they can rely on for childcare, remember, in this day and age of mobility and family disintegration. And curiously, many 'conservative' men are opposed, somehow, to paying child support or alimony, so leave their ex-wives to support or partially support the child(ren). I could cite many instances of this.
One more thing: 'conservatives' have often very vocal in demanding that many divorced or widowed women on assistance get up off their lazy behinds and go to work, placing their kids in daycare. Is this not inconsistent with the idea that all children deserve to have their mothers at home? Or are only wealthy women allowed to raise their own children? It seems to me that conservatives who believe in full-time mothering have not thought this question through.
I remember Newt Gingrich's proposal to bring back orphanages as an alternative to welfare.
So where were Gingrich's family values there, if all children need their mothers?
I am not calling for taxpayers to support all women who want to stay at home with their kids, but maybe if we can afford trillions for war in Iraq, we could afford to subsidize stay-at-home moms --- IF we truly believe it is a must for mothers to be at home. But actually I am not convinced that we really believe this. I think the attacks on working mothers have ulterior motives; it isn't about keeping moms at home at all, but about making political points, or it's a feeble kind of striking back at the faceless 'feminazis.'
But either we believe in the ideal of women caring for their own children, or we don't. There should be no double standards, one for women in intact marriages or women with plenty of money, and a second for women who are alone due to divorce or death, or women whose husbands earn too little to support the family. Maybe there is some truth to the liberal stereotype that conservatives are out-of-touch people who are wealthy and insulated from reality.
Believe it or not, I am about as traditional as you get on these things. But I see no reason to try to establish some kind of pre-'feminazi' Golden Age which never was, and punish all the women who don't conform to the ideal. That is not what tradition means. Tradition means
1 a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable 2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction 3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions''
It does not mean some mythical ideal which never existed in reality.
Cultural continuity means that we are bound to what actually existed, not what we wish had existed, and not what ideally would exist in some perfect world.
I think conservatives need to seriously re-examine where they stand, because they are all over the map on these things.

Labels: Egalitarianism, Feminism, Social Conservatism, Traditional Morality